[logo] Federal Britain No longer unthinkable? JOHN BARNES WITH CONTRIBUTIONS FROM FERDINAND MOUNT, NOEL MALCOLM AND LORD ALEXANDER CENTRE FOR POLICY STUDIES 57 Tufton Street, London SW1P 3QL 1998 THE AUTHOR John Barnes has been a lecturer in British Politics at the London School of Economics since 1964. He has been a Conservative Prospective Parliamentary Candidate in the General Elections of 1964, 1966 and 1970. He was a councillor on Greenwich Borough Council from 1968 to 1973; on Kent County Council from 1973 to 1989; and currently serves on East Sussex County Council where he is Chairman of the Education Committee. He is co-author of Baldwin: A Biography (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1969) and co- editor of The Leo Amery Diaries 1896-1929 and The Empire at Bay: the Leo Amery Diaries 1929-45 (Hutchinson, 1980, 1988). He is also the author of The Conservative Party since 1945 (Blackwell, forthcoming). Acknowledgements In addition to acknowledging the efficient editorial resources to the Centre for Policy Studies, the author would like to express his warmest thanks to Oliver Knox for his help in sharpening the message of the original Conference paper on which this essay is based. Support for this publication was given by the Institute for Policy Research. The Centre for Policy Studies never expresses a corporate view in any of its publications. Contributions are chosen for their independence of thought and cogency of argument. ISBN No. 1 897969 70 8 Centre for Policy Studies, January 1998 57 Tufton Street, London SW1P 3QA Printed by the Chameleon Press, 5 – 25 Burr Road, London SW18 CONTENTS Preface by the Rt Hon Michael Ancram MP The Argument 1. The dangers of drift 1 2. A Spanish lesson 5 3. Problems of party 6 4. The English question 9 5. Finance, taxation, representation 11 6. Maps of loyalty 14 7. Federalism: truths and untruths 20 8. Parliamentary decay 26 9. The boon of subsidiarity 31 10. Who gets what 37 11. Majoritarianism run mad 40 Conclusion 44 A Reply by Ferdinand Mount 45 A Reply by Noel Malcolm 50 A Reply by Lord Alexander 54 PREFACE BY THE RT HON MICHAEL ANCRAM MP THE TIME HAS COME to debate the British constitution. For one thing is certain. When the Conservative Party gets back to power we will not find the constitution as we left it. It will have been changed in a number of respects: we shall see a Scottish Parliament; we shall see a Welsh Assembly; we may well see changes in our voting system; we may well see reforms to the House of Lords; we shall certainly see a different system of government in London. We shall be some way down the road of regionalisation within England; the Labour Party, in its recent White Paper, has made it clear that it is setting up regional development agencies not for their economic benefit alone, but because they will form the basis of a democratic regionalisation of England itself in the future. So I welcome this pamphlet which so expertly examines the problems which are mounting up on the constitutional front. However, while I share John Barnes’ fears for the future of the Union, I remain to be convinced of the case for federalism. In his paper, he undoubtedly asks the right questions. But is federalism the only, or the best, way to preserve the Union? There are no easy answers. In four or five years time, when the Conservatives are next in a position to do something about it, we may well find that the course of devolution and regionalisation has run a very long way. So we must be prepared to think the unthinkable. We should not seek definitive answers now, but now is the time to begin the debate. In three or four years time it will be our duty to pick up the pieces arising from the uncoordinated constitutional reforms being carried out by this Labour Government, and to try to repair the dreadful damage which will have been inflicted upon the Union. That will require the fresh thinking which is embodied in this pamphlet. THE ARGUMENT FEDERAL BRITAIN ARGUES THAT Tony Blair’s Government is destabilising the political and constitutional framework of the United Kingdom, by devolutionary shreds and patches. No prospects are offered of a coherent new constitutional framework. Instead, the “politics of territory” threaten the integrity of the Union. Competition for resources, inherent in the proposals, will breed conflict. Similarly, efforts to rebalance the constitution by devolving powers to the English regions must lead to a creeping decentralisation: a dangerous game in which English nationalism may itself take a hand. Yet the paramount interests of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England are to stay part of a strong and united Kingdom. The arguments are especially cogent in the light of a possible development of the European Union into a Europe of the Regions, instead of the present Europe des Patries. Material considerations may not be enough by themselves to hold Britain together. We must build a new, codified constitutional framework while sentiment within the country remains in favour of maintaining and strengthening the Union. Recognition that the traditional concept of Parliamentary sovereignty no longer adequately reflects the wishes of the sovereign people is the first step. We have to devise a framework which does. The central question may prove to be not whether to move to a federal structure, but whether that federation is based on existing nations or artificially created regions. In the context of both Britain and the European Union, an arrangement based on provincial parliaments for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would be more soundly based and would, in turn, enable local government to be strengthened. The new constitution would recognise and enforce a proper dispersion of powers to provincial parliaments and to local government, while establishing a clear role for a federal United Kingdom government. That role, which would include defence and foreign policy as a matter of course, would allow us also to co-ordinate better our approach to the European Union. Given a real effort to establish subsidiarity and to espouse limited government, the consequent benefits of such a constitution, in terms of liberty alone, should encourage Conservatives to support it. Yet the overwhelming argument is prudential: a recognition that the Government has unleashed forces which it does not understand, and which must be brought within a new constitutional framework if the United Kingdom is to endure and to prosper. CHAPTER 1 THE DANGERS OF DRIFT DEVOLUTION FOR SCOTLAND AND WALES is now a certainty. So we must consider the effect of these reforms and look for ways of making them less disruptive of the Union. The main purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that the right federal constitution for the United Kingdom is now the best way to preserve and strengthen the Union. Further, it argues that there are benefits in applying the principle of subsidiarity to the United Kingdom as part of the new constitutional arrangements; and that another advantage would be a more explicit, less flexible and capricious constitution. There is a danger that, rather than grasp the nettle, those who are by temperament conservative will see the Labour Government’s reforms not as a botch but as one more stepping-stone in the evolutionary development of the British constitution, no more anomalous than any previous compromise. After all, Northern Ireland enjoyed devolved government from 1921 until 1972 and no one questioned the right of Ulster MPs to sit and vote in the UK Parliament. It may be that the number of Scottish MPs will not be reduced for another decade, but can we not live with that? There is (as yet) no reason why the English may not be able to put up with such a compromise, although some English MPs will certainly take up the cause of England (whether out of conscience or simply in pursuit of political fortune). Yet that is not the only danger. The main one to be feared is that, if we just wait and see, the forces making for the disintegration of the Union may gain such a hold that there will be no going back. No skipper with his ship on a lee shore waits to see if the wind will remain hostile. Some brief lessons from Ireland The United Kingdom must be under no illusion. Although the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly bear some family resemblance to Stormont, the situations are not the same. There, a minority looked to the south of the island where a secessionist movement had already been successful in gaining independence and sought (not always strenuously, it should be noted) to bring about a unified Ireland. Faced with a southern Irish State, whose constitution set out its claim to the north, and with a substantial minority of its citizens who endorsed that claim, the Northern Irish government was not going to do anything which would drive a wedge between itself and its parent government. For its part, the UK government balked at interfering in the affairs of 1 FEDERAL BRITAIN Northern Ireland despite much evidence of discrimination, mainly at the level of local government, against the Catholic population. Looking back, we may be amazed that the situation held for 50 years. Once disorder broke out, the UK government was drawn inexorably to the point where it had to resume direct rule. Not unnaturally, since most Unionists were not at heart devolutionists, they did not resist. These circumstances do not correspond in any way to the situation in Scotland. We must be wary therefore of drawing too many lessons from Northern Ireland.